Jai Kumar Sahu And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Opposite party no.2 has already appeared by way of filing Vakalatnama.

The matter was taken up on 16.05.2023 and on that day, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 was not present and that is why, the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2 and it was also observed that if opposite party no.2 will not appear on the next date, this petition shall be decided on merit in her absence.

Identical is the situation today. On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and in that view of the matter, this petition is being heard on merit.

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.04.2011 in connection with Complaint Case No. 55/2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau.

The complaint case was filed by the complainant, who is sister of the petitioners, alleging therein that on 15.01.2011 around 12 o'clock, all the petitioners who are own brothers of complainant came at the house of complainant on their own vehicle and said that you are demanding share in the property of your father on that complainant said that you had stated that before 14.01.2011 you will be given your share of land on that the husband of the complainant said that as per law daughter has also share in the property of father why you will not give, on that all three person abused and beaten with slap and thereafter they went by their private vehicle and while going they said if you asked share in property you will have to face dire consequences. It was therefore requested that immediate action may be taken against the accused persons.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the brothers of the complainant. He submits that the sister has demanded share in ancestral property, which was refused by her brothers and subsequently malafidely the present case has been filed alleging therein that the petitioners have assaulted her. He draws attention of the Court to the solemn affirmation and submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 504 of the I.P.C. and in view of the solemn affirmation, no case under Section 504 of the I.P.C. is made out.

Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance on the complaint petition.

The Court has perused the contents of the complaint case and finds that in the complaint petition itself, it has been admitted that the petitioners are the brothers of the complainant and there is some dispute with regard to the ancestral property of father, between the petitioners and opposite party no.2 and if such a situation was there, remedy was there by way of filing appropriate petition. In the present case, no criminality is made out. Further looking to the solemn affirmation, the Court finds that there is no allegation of assaulting the complainant. The learned court has taken cognizance under Section 504 of the I.P.C. Looking to the solemn affirmation, it appears that no case under Section 504 of the I.P.C. is made out.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.04.2011 in connection with Complaint Case No. 55/2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau is quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.